This decision is apparently setting the precedent that if a user can claim that edits they disagree with are offensive to them, then their view is the only acceptable view and the rest of Wikipedia's editors can go hang.
RickK
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/
No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups who are offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of our general policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an actual policy.
Fred
On Jun 18, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Rick wrote:
This decision is apparently setting the precedent that if a user can claim that edits they disagree with are offensive to them, then their view is the only acceptable view and the rest of Wikipedia's editors can go hang.
RickK
Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think this is a bad way of putting what is a sound idea in this instance. It is true that Jguk was changing date formats to something that offended SouthernComfort and others. It is also true, however, that SouthernComfort had been changing date formats to something that offended Jguk and others.
The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
-- ambi
On 6/19/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups who are offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of our general policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an actual policy.
Fred
On Jun 18, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Rick wrote:
This decision is apparently setting the precedent that if a user can claim that edits they disagree with are offensive to them, then their view is the only acceptable view and the rest of Wikipedia's editors can go hang.
RickK
Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
-- ambi
But this isn't true. SouthernComfort hit artices on which he had no previous editing history.
geni
Folks, if you don't provide evidence, then don't be surprise when your concerns aren't included in a ruling. The vast amount of evidence there points to the conclusion I noted before - there are piles upon piles of examples of Jguk systematically changing stuff, and about four examples of SouthernComfort doing the same thing. We can only consider what is put before us, and almost all of that relates to Jguk.
-- ambi
On 6/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
-- ambi
But this isn't true. SouthernComfort hit artices on which he had no previous editing history.
geni
To be fair, in my experience, often one can provide evidence and still not have much of the arbcom read it....
-Snowspinner
On Jun 19, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Rebecca wrote:
Folks, if you don't provide evidence, then don't be surprise when your concerns aren't included in a ruling. The vast amount of evidence there points to the conclusion I noted before - there are piles upon piles of examples of Jguk systematically changing stuff, and about four examples of SouthernComfort doing the same thing. We can only consider what is put before us, and almost all of that relates to Jguk.
-- ambi
On 6/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
-- ambi
But this isn't true. SouthernComfort hit artices on which he had no previous editing history.
geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
Folks, if you don't provide evidence, then don't be surprise when your concerns aren't included in a ruling. The vast amount of evidence there points to the conclusion I noted before - there are piles upon piles of examples of Jguk systematically changing stuff, and about four examples of SouthernComfort doing the same thing. We can only consider what is put before us, and almost all of that relates to Jguk.
-- ambi
Rebecca, I respect you tremendously, but, forgive me, this just sounds like laziness to me. If the arbcomm is given a diff, can't they look at the various versions of the article in question, or are they ironclad bound to only look at the single diff?
RickK
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Numerous diffs were viewed and what was seen was Jguk reverting over and over giving reasons which have no basis in Wikipedia policy.
Fred
On Jun 19, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Rick wrote:
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
Folks, if you don't provide evidence, then don't be surprise when your concerns aren't included in a ruling. The vast amount of evidence there points to the conclusion I noted before - there are piles upon piles of examples of Jguk systematically changing stuff, and about four examples of SouthernComfort doing the same thing. We can only consider what is put before us, and almost all of that relates to Jguk.
-- ambi
Rebecca, I respect you tremendously, but, forgive me, this just sounds like laziness to me. If the arbcomm is given a diff, can't they look at the various versions of the article in question, or are they ironclad bound to only look at the single diff?
RickK
Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a bad way of putting what is a sound idea in this instance. It is true that Jguk was changing date formats to something that offended SouthernComfort and others. It is also true, however, that SouthernComfort had been changing date formats to something that offended Jguk and others.
The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
-- ambi
SouthernComfort was NOT one of the editors involved until after he got into "change every article about Iran to BCE" mode. jguk was RIGHTLY changing SC's edits back to what the original authors had left them at.
RickK
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Under the existing style guide that was ok. Either style is acceptable.
Fred
On Jun 19, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Rick wrote:
SouthernComfort was NOT one of the editors involved until after he got into "change every article about Iran to BCE" mode. jguk was RIGHTLY changing SC's edits back to what the original authors had left them at.
RickK
On Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:32 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jun 19, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Rick wrote:
SouthernComfort was NOT one of the editors involved until after he got into "change every article about Iran to BCE" mode. jguk was RIGHTLY changing SC's edits back to what the original authors had left them at.
Under the existing style guide that was ok. Either style is acceptable.
Indeed. However, this misses out one very important part (paraphased, obviously):
| Under the existing style guide, either style is acceptable. Changing an | article with both forms to use just one is, also, acceptable, a useful | bit of copyediting. However, changing an article from style to the other, | in whichever direction, is not, and should be reverted.
The lack of everything after the first full stop is what is worrying in your answers; I hope that it was missed off purely for brevity.
Yours,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:24:15AM +0100, James D. Forrester wrote:
On Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:32 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: | Under the existing style guide, either style is acceptable. Changing an | article with both forms to use just one is, also, acceptable, a useful | bit of copyediting. However, changing an article from style to the other, | in whichever direction, is not, and should be reverted.
The lack of everything after the first full stop is what is worrying in your answers; I hope that it was missed off purely for brevity.
The way it sounds to me, acceptable conduct is to not make a big deal out of the issue. Anyone who makes a big deal about it is in violation of policy. :)
Exactly. And in my opinion that include the arbitrators who are in full retreat because a "good" editor has decided to pack it up because there was a PROPOSED decision he found offensive.
Fred
On Jun 20, 2005, at 9:59 AM, Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:24:15AM +0100, James D. Forrester wrote:
On Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:32 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: | Under the existing style guide, either style is acceptable. Changing an | article with both forms to use just one is, also, acceptable, a useful | bit of copyediting. However, changing an article from style to the other, | in whichever direction, is not, and should be reverted.
The lack of everything after the first full stop is what is worrying in your answers; I hope that it was missed off purely for brevity.
The way it sounds to me, acceptable conduct is to not make a big deal out of the issue. Anyone who makes a big deal about it is in violation of policy. :)
-- Karl A. Krueger kkrueger@whoi.edu
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Exactly. And in my opinion that include the arbitrators who are in full retreat because a "good" editor has decided to pack it up because there was a PROPOSED decision he found offensive.
Fred
Or maybe we are just prepared to listen when the community says we are making a mistake.
--sannse
On 6/21/05, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Or maybe we are just prepared to listen when the community says we are making a mistake.
--sannse
Hear hear.
-- ambi
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Under the existing style guide that was ok. Either style is acceptable.
Fred
On Jun 19, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Rick wrote:
SouthernComfort was NOT one of the editors
involved
until after he got into "change every article
about
Iran to BCE" mode. jguk was RIGHTLY changing SC's edits back to what the original authors had left
them
at.
RickK
It was NOT ok. SouthernComfort's sole edits were to change the date formats. This would be the same as an editor changing all American spellings to English spellings and getting away with it because they are offended by American spellings.
RickK
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Your statement is not based on the facts, SouthernComfort generally was a regular editor of the articles he changed the notation in. He can be presumed to have decided Common Era notation was better for that article and to have had at least the forbearance of the other editors. With respect to American versus British English it has always been acceptable to change to American spelling for an American subject and vice-versa.
Fred
On Jun 19, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Rick wrote:
It was NOT ok. SouthernComfort's sole edits were to change the date formats. This would be the same as an editor changing all American spellings to English spellings and getting away with it because they are offended by American spellings.
RickK
On 6/20/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Your statement is not based on the facts, SouthernComfort generally was a regular editor of the articles he changed the notation in. He can be presumed to have decided Common Era notation was better for that article and to have had at least the forbearance of the other editors. With respect to American versus British English it has always been acceptable to change to American spelling for an American subject and vice-versa.
Fred
You presume falsely.
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups who are offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of our general policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an actual policy.
Fred
Isn't that exactly what SouthernComfort did? He said he was offended by BC/AD, and you and the rest of the arbcomm said his offense is more important than consensus.
RickK
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050620 05:53]:
Isn't that exactly what SouthernComfort did? He said he was offended by BC/AD, and you and the rest of the arbcomm said his offense is more important than consensus.
Not the *entire* rest, thanks ...
This is the sort of AC case that should never have been accepted, and I'm now sorry I voted 'accept' (though it already had four by the time I got there).
- d.
We have been here before. We have a user who is doing something in an obsessive way, but is otherwise a productive editor. Because they are a "good" editor, nothing is done, or there is a slap on the wrist. They keep on and on and we have Wik2 and Wik3 and would have had Wik4 if the whole Committee had not finally come around.
Fred
On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050620 05:53]:
Isn't that exactly what SouthernComfort did? He said he was offended by BC/AD, and you and the rest of the arbcomm said his offense is more important than consensus.
Not the *entire* rest, thanks ...
This is the sort of AC case that should never have been accepted, and I'm now sorry I voted 'accept' (though it already had four by the time I got there).
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/20/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Not the *entire* rest, thanks ...
This is the sort of AC case that should never have been accepted, and I'm now sorry I voted 'accept' (though it already had four by the time I got there).
I'm beginning to regret this myself. This is the sort of case I'm really growing increasingly against us hearing in the first place, and it's rapidly degenerating into a stuffup.
-- ambi
David Gerard wrote:
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050620 05:53]:
Isn't that exactly what SouthernComfort did? He said he was offended by BC/AD, and you and the rest of the arbcomm said his offense is more important than consensus.
Not the *entire* rest, thanks ...
This is the sort of AC case that should never have been accepted, and I'm now sorry I voted 'accept' (though it already had four by the time I got there).
When people can simply say that they are offended and have all sorts of operations thus brought to a screeching halt then you know that political correctness has run amok. Some take it to the extent that being offended becomes offensive. When people use these allegedly offensive expressions offense is often the furthest thing from their minds; they are not being disrespectful of anybody. Their actions should be viewed in that light, and not in the light of someone else's self-pity.
Ec
On Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:53 PM, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups who are offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of our general policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an actual policy.
Isn't that exactly what SouthernComfort did? He said he was offended by BC/AD, and you and the rest of the arbcomm said his offense is more important than consensus.
Yes, indeed, absolutely. As I said when I made my contribution to the unfortunately divisive poll carried out on this issue, as an atheist I find "CE"/"BCE" notation abhorrent and amazingly offensive; it suggests that my concerns that the calendar system, based on some daft quacks' opinions on the historical accuracy of their lore on some lackey who conned them into believing that he was the "son" of some mythical "god"-figure invented by tribal elders to keep their people in line, is of any relevance to the real world, and that my life should be based on said arcane information's "wisdom". [0]
"CE"/"BCE" notation really is religious imperialism at its very worst, and I am saddened to see that a few odd parts of the US academic system. At least its vileness has not (yet) spread and infected others, hood-winked into thinking that it is "politically correct".[1] It is notable that I had never come across it at all until coming to Wikipedia - this despite my fascination with history and having left school but 4 years ago, so hardly being part of an older generation, whose education was less "well-balanced" than today's. I asked a historian friend of mine (as in, post-grad historian) about "CE"/"BCE", who laughed and said that it was very rarely used outside of very specialist circles, and was a very good way to make your paper look like it was written by someone with an axe to grind.[2]
Intriguingly, those who note the absolute scarcity of use of "CE"/"BCE" notation are now asked to prove the lack of existence of its widespread use. Gosh. How fun. Being asked to prove a negative. Lots of critical thinking students here, evidently.
What, exactly, would constitute sufficient proof that "CE" and "BCE" are not well-used, or even recognised, outside of the United States?
[0] - This is not a personal attack. [1] - Neither is this. [2] - Yes, this is anecdotal, and has nothing like basis for an argument. However, I am happy with it as such, because it has no stronger basis in fact than any other argument I have yet seen (many comments written used particular parts of this argument as "divine knowledge", self-evidently true; this irony no doubt was sadly lost on the authors).
Yours,
On 6/19/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
What, exactly, would constitute sufficient proof that "CE" and "BCE" are not well-used, or even recognised, outside of the United States?
Well you could start by telling us what part of the story has been omitted from this: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/531644 ... It was somewhat hard to find that URL because google returns so many .uk sites using the BCE/CE nomenclature.
In any case, I think this is becoming pointless rehashing of the debate that already occurred on wikipedia. It has already been decided that both forms are acceptable. That BCE/CE might be less well known or even US centric has no bearing on weather or not arbcom is engaging in affirming one POV over another.
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050619 06:34]:
This decision is apparently setting the precedent that if a user can claim that edits they disagree with are offensive to them, then their view is the only acceptable view and the rest of Wikipedia's editors can go hang.
I see some problematic areas in the proposed decision in its present state (e.g. the statement about academic standards only applies to the US and definitely not to the UK, and even then only certain parts of US academia) and will hopefully find time today to put some amendments in.
- d.